Hines v. Mather V.A. Hospital

Background

Michael Hines, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that someone changed his name in Veterans Administration records to Michael X. Hines even though he did not have a middle initial. He said that several Veterans Administration facilities refused to remove the added initial until July 2021. He also alleged that, without his knowledge, he was listed as having non-veteran status from 2015 to 2020, which he said caused him to lose critical veterans benefits. Hines claimed emotional distress, including fear, paranoia, depression, and psychological effects, and sought $50,000.

Hines filed the lawsuit asserting a violation of his civil rights. The United States and Mather V.A. Hospital moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The complaint did not name the United States as a defendant, but the court referred to the United States and the Hospital together as the defendants for convenience.

Civil-rights claim

The court held that Hines did not identify which civil right was violated and did not allege facts supporting a plausible claim for denial of due process. The court discussed a Bivens claim, which is a damages claim against certain federal officials for violating the Constitution, and noted that such claims generally are not available against federal agencies. The court also concluded that Hines’s allegations were reasonably understood as asserting a tort claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act rather than a civil-rights claim. It therefore granted the motion to dismiss the civil-rights claim.

Federal Tort Claims Act claim

The court explained that the United States, rather than an individual federal agency, is the only proper defendant for a Federal Tort Claims Act claim. It therefore granted the request to dismiss Mather V.A. Hospital as a defendant and gave Hines leave to file an amended complaint deleting the Hospital and adding the United States.

The United States argued that Hines’s tort claim was untimely because he said he learned about the name error in 2016 but did not submit his administrative claim until April 15, 2021. Hines argued that the continuing-violation doctrine could apply because he allegedly made repeated requests to correct his records and those requests were refused. The court also noted Hines’s statement that he did not learn about the change to non-veteran status until May 19, 2019.

The court concluded that the timeliness issue depended on factual questions, including whether the Veterans Administration repeatedly refused to correct the name and what benefits Hines allegedly lost. Because those questions could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss, the court denied the United States’s motion to dismiss the Federal Tort Claims Act claim.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed Hines’s civil-rights claim, granted the United States’s motion to dismiss the Hospital as a defendant, and allowed Hines to amend his complaint by June 27, 2022, to substitute the United States. It otherwise denied the United States’s motion to dismiss the Federal Tort Claims Act claim. The United States was ordered to respond to the amended complaint by July 11, 2022.